KOSHAL - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of a single Judge of the Allahabad High court declaring the election of the appellant named Rajendra Singh Yadav, who was the returned candidate from the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Constituency No. 314 (Mohammadabad, District Farrukhabad), held in the year 1974, to be void on the sole ground that he had been guilty of the commission of the corrupt practice specified in clause (5) of Section 123 of the Act, and further holding that "he is disqualified for a period of six years".
(2.) SEVEN candidates took part in the election contest, the appellant's nearest rival being the Congress candidate Smt. Vidyavati Rathore (respondent No. 3) who secured 25736 votes as against 43844 polled in favour of the appellant who fought the battle as an independent candidate. The petition under Section 81 of the Act was instituted in the High Court by two electors other than the candidates on various grounds including the commission by the returned candidate of different types of corrupt practices. The only ground found by the High to have been established is, as already stated, the commission of the corrupt practice detailed in clause (5) of Sections 123 of the Act which states: "123. The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purpose of this Act:- (1) to (4)... .. (5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector (other than the candidate himself, the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided under Section 25 or a place fixed under sub-section (1) of Section 29 for the poll. (6) & (7) ... .. The allegations made in the petition, in so far as they are relevant for the purpose of the present appeal, were stated in paragraph 12 thereof and are reproduced below: "(a) That respondent No. 1 himself, his workers, agents and supporters, with the consent of respondent No. 1, hired and procured vehicles, tractors with trolleys, trucks, jeeps and cars for free conveyance of electors from their houses to the polling stations on the date of poll, i.e., 26-2-74. "(b) That the persons who were transporting the voters were the workers, agents and supporters of respondent No. 1 and were so doing with the consent of respondent No. 1 inasmuch as they had put badges depicting the name of respondent No. 1 with his election symbol (cycle). Some of them were carrying banners in which the symbol of cycle was depicted. The persons who used to carry the voters to the polling stations on the vehicles dropped the voters in the camps set up by respondent No. 1 nearing the polling stations. After these voters had cast their votes, they were brought back to their respective villages on the aforesaid vehicles. Respondent No. 1 himself, his workers, agents and supporters with the consent of respondent No. 1, were carrying a large number of female voters also. "(c) That in most of the vehicles, a poster bearing cycle symbol was carried and the workers, agents and supporters of respondent No. 1 with his consent were wearing badges with cycle symbol and as such throughout the polling day, i.e., 26-2-74, the voters were carried," Clause (e) of the same paragraph stated that full particulars of various vehicles hired, procured and used along with the places and the polling stations at which and the person by whom they were used were given in Sch. III in the petition, to which was later on added by amendment Schedule III-A . Items-2 and 5 of Schedule III and the whole of Schedule III-A contain 'full particulars' of the corrupt practice and found to have been proved and are extracted below for facility of reference. SCHEDULE III "Particulars of hiring and procuring of the vehicles by respondent No. 1, his agents, workers and supporters with the consent of respondent No. 1 for the free conveyance of the electors from their houses to polling stations. JUDGEMENT_111_4_1979Html1.htm SCHEDULE III-A HIRING AND PROCRING USER OF VEHICLES JUDGEMENT_111_4_1979Html2.htm Procured and hired in the presence of Narain Singh s/o Anganoo Singh, Village Naigaon Khasulia. In his written statement, the appellant controverted all the pleas made by the petitioner-electors and asserted that neither he nor any of his agents or workers had hired or procured any vehicle whatsoever for the purpose stated nor had used any such vehicle therefore.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned single Judge framed 12 issues but we are now concerned only with Issue No. 7 which runs thus: "7. Whether respondent No. 1 himself, his workers, agents and supporters with the consent of respondent No. 1 had procured and used vehicles for free conveyance of electors as mentioned in paras 12 (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) and Schedule III of the petition, and thus committed the corrupt practice as provided in Section 123 (5) of the Act? If so, its effect?" It is common ground between the parties that Nauli polling Station had two polling boohts, each having a separate Presiding Officer. These booths were designated by serial numbers 121 and 122. G. S. Srivastava (P.W. 2) who otherwise held the office of the District Fisheries Inspector, Farrukhabad, was the Presiding Officer at polling booth No. 121 which was meant for voters residing in village Nauli alone. The other polling booth, having serial No. 122, had another Presiding Officer and voters from villages named Bichhauli and Siani had to poll their votes thereat. Similarly, Khinmini polling Station had two polling booths designated by serial numbers 88 and 89 having P. S. Gaharwar (P.W. 6) and Narendra Singh (P.W. 3) as Presiding Officers respectively.;